The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1887-12-16

nat although state may prohibit the
of Intoxicating liquors for
ale within her llmlts for general nse. no
onyention or legislature has righssunder
,ur form OF government, to prohibit any
tIzen from manufacturing for his own use
n for export or storage.any article Of food
IF drink not endangering or affecting the
lights Of others.
ASrI.rRoHfBrTIoS ARGUMENT.
Argument made in support Of the first
branch Of this proposition. briefly stated,is
That in the implied eornpacts between
state and i,s citizen, certain rights are re.
served By the latter which are guaranteed
BY the constitutional provision for protect
ing life, liberty and property against de-
privation without due process OF law, and
with which state cannot Interfere that
among those rights is that Of manutactur-
Ing for ones own use either food or drink !:
that while, according 10 the doctrines OF
the commune. the state may control the
tastes, appetites, habits. dEsss, food and
drink Of citizens, eur system Of govern
ment, based apon the Individuality and In
teliigenes of the people. does not claim 70
control him, except as TO bis conduct to
others, leaving him the sole judge as to ell
that only affects himself.
II will be observed tha, the proposition.
and the argument made Ia support OF Il,
equally concede that the right to manu-.
tscture drink for ones personal use issns-
ject to the conditions that such manuiac.
ture does not endanger the rights OF others.
II such manufacture does preIudieGaliy
affect the rights aud interests OF the com.
munity. II follows that society has power
to protect itself by Legislation against the
injurious consequences VI that business.
As we said In Mum W. EllIngers (o4 Ms.,
rs4) while power does not exist with the
whole people 10 control rights purely and
exclusively private, government may re-
quira each citizen so to conduct himself
and 30 to use his own property as not an.
necessarily to Injure another.
TtTR LEGISLATIVE POWER
But by whom or BY what authority Is II
to be determined whether the manufae-
ture OF particular articles Of drink. either
for general use or for the personal use oi
the maker, will injuriously affect the pub
lie Power to Determine such questions
80 as to bind all must exist tsemewhers, ,else
society will be at the mercy Of few,who
regarding only their own aPpetlses OF
passions. may be willing TO imperil the
peace and security Of the many, provided
only they are permitted TO do as they
please. Under our system that power Il
lodged with the legislative branch OF the
government. II belongs to that depart
nent 10 exert what are known as the police
powers Of states. Il must determine pri
marily what measures are appropriate OF
necdfuI for the protection Of public morals
health or safety, limits beyond which leg
islation cannot rightinlly 60. Asthe cour
must obey the constitution rather thar
the iaw.making departments OF the gov
ernmentit must,upon It's responsibilities de
termine whether, in any particular case
these limits have been passed. Courts arr
at liberty to look at the substancs OF thing
whenever they enter upon an inquir,
whether legislature has transcended III
limits of its authority, keeping In view th'
principles governing the relations Wit
each other of the judicial and Legislative
departments Of the government.
Tna RIGHT TO PROHIBIT.
1t 10 difficult to perceive any ground to
judicially declaring that prohibition b
Kansas Of the manufacture or sale With
her limits of intoxicating liquors for ger
eral use there as beverage Is not fairl
adapted to the end Of protecting the com
munity against the evils which confessed
ly result from the excessive use OF arden
spirits. We caanot shut out of view tn
fact that public health, morals and publi
safety may be endangered BY general US
ofintoxicating drinks Nor can we ignor
the fact that disorder, pauperism an
crime, when prevalent In country, ,are,i
large measure, directly t.aceable to tn
evil.
II, therefore, the state deems absolut
prohibition Of the manufacture and sal
within the state of Intoxicating liquors
be necessary to the peace and security I
society, courts cannot override the will {
the people as thus expressed by their cho'
en- representatives. It Is fMndamentI
principle in our institutions, indispensabl
to the preservation of public liberty, thi
one Of the separate departments of gov
srnmcnt shall not usurp the powers con-
mitted by the constitution to other depar
ments.
PROPERTY NOT TAKEN.
In reply to the claim that prohibition {
the manufacture and sale of liquor d.
prives liquor dealers of their prcpert
without due process of law the court say
All property under our form of govern
ment is subject to the obligation that
shall not be used so as to injuricusly a
feet the rights of the community an
thereby become nuisance. The state {
Kansas had right to prohibit the liquc
traffic. It did not thereby take away tn
property of brewers. It simply ahated
r,;eance The nropertv Is not taken ava